Paper代写：Cultural governance

Most domestic scholars define cultural governance as the social function of culture, which leads to the generalization and even misuse of the concept of governance. The specific concept of cultural governance refers to the application of the cultural elements of social capital in the network governance, which embodies the relationship network of transverse interaction, and is not the rule and management of culture. Cultural governance is not only embodied in the governance of culture. It is also embodied in the governance based on culture. As far as the former is concerned, the imbalance of national discourse, market discourse and civic discourse in China's cultural policy is a structural factor restricting cultural governance. In terms of the latter, it is not limited to seeking resources from the traditional, but cultural governance should be regarded as a response to the profound changes in the present culture, as social changes, value changes and cultural changes brought about by technological changes require social governance to pay more attention to cultural factors.

In recent years, in the context of governance research, especially the 18-session plenary put forward to promote national governance system and the modernization of governance capacity, the discussion of cultural governance will be more. However, the current research is mainly on the concept and function of cultural governance interpretation, the relevant policy situation is not much attention. At the same time, the interpretation of functional vision will generalize cultural governance into the social function of culture and bring about double ambiguity of problem consciousness and policy operation. This paper discusses the policy implication and policy situation of cultural governance from the perspective of the application of the cultural elements in the governance framework.

Cultural governance arose in the latter half of the 20th century, the United Nations, the European Union in the literature on the concept of cultural governance, its connotation is the political field of governance change into the cultural management, through the cooperation between the Government and non-governmental organizations to form a governance pattern of cultural management. In domestic research, based on the compound form of "culture + governance", people's understanding of cultural governance has two perspectives, one is the governance of culture and the other is based on cultural governance. The governance of culture is to introduce governance into culture, emphasizing that cultural public administration should change from traditional control mode to modern governance mode, which is similar to the concept of the European Union's cultural governance. The Ministry of Culture's ability to promote cultural governance is focused on this. Culture-based governance is the introduction of culture to governance, emphasizing the integration of cultural functions into the social management vision, such as Hu Huilin that cultural governance is "the use of cultural functions to overcome and solve the problems of national development of the tool."

The second perspective is to define cultural governance from the perspective of cultural positive function, which has wide influence. But the analysis found that in the functional field of vision, cultural governance is about the culture of the culture, the rule of the country, all the cultural is governance, cultural governance has become a cultural repetition. In other words, the concept of cultural governance is merely a new analysis of the social and maintenance functions of culture. In this way, cultural governance is not a new topic, but the phenomenon of ancient times. As Hu Huilin said, "people create and produce culture is for the governance of people, ' Knot and Cure, later Saints easy to book." This is the earliest description of the relationship between culture and social governance in ancient China. It is based on this perspective that in some scholars, cultural governance is in the political, economic and social aspects of cultural construction, such as the Government to strengthen the core value system to build and develop the cultural industry, market organization to build corporate culture, citizens to enhance civic virtue.

It can be seen that, in the view of function, it should be the cultural governance of the products of modern pluralism, and there is no essential difference in the amount of the cultural politics of the ancient culture and the planned economy in addition to the means. This brings a question: Since the cultural governance has existed since ancient times, in all forms and activities related to culture, what is the significance of introducing the concept of cultural governance?

The cultural governance is defined by the social function of culture, which generalizes the connotation of cultural governance, even the abuse of the concept of governance, which leads to the double ambiguity of its problem consciousness and policy operation. Governance is a modern concept with a specific problem consciousness and policy implication, which aims at the dual failure of the state and the market in allocating resources, emphasizing new ways to govern society, such as multi-central governance, coordination rather than control, and cooperation between public institutions and private institutions. Cultural governance is the subordinate concept of governance, its basic connotation can not exceed the scope of governance connotation. In this respect, the first angle of view on cultural governance is the governance of culture, which embodies the original meaning of governance, and the deficiency is that this perspective is limited to cultural management itself, and does not take into account the use of culture in other areas of governance. The second perspective, functional perspective, is to generalize cultural governance into all the dominant and management based on culture, which makes the real governance disappear. "The stronger the form of the concept, the more generalization of its interpretation", the generalization of the concept of cultural governance directly undermines the concept itself, resulting in its explanatory power and vitality weakening.

To get out of the culture is to carry out the confusion of cultural governance, need to return to the original meaning of governance. Cultural governance is established and necessary, not simply because the culture has the function of regulating social operation, but the cultural element is a kind of social capital, which can become a mechanism and elements of network governance. Two points are emphasized here. First, culture plays a role in network governance. Cultural governance is not the rule and management of culture. Governance is about network management, is a social coordination network based on trust and mutual benefit, which means a new ruling ecology, that is to replace market and grade system with network. This is a horizontal interaction in which the so-called multiple centers and different bodies work together in this interactive network. Second, the culture is in the form of social capital involved in governance. The cultural factors such as reciprocity, trust and cooperation are important social capital to realize the transverse Action Network. This has a qualitative difference with the relationship-type network of our country's traditional society. The precondition of this kind of social capital is the independence and the voluntary nature of the citizen, it carries on the crosswise interaction through the social organization, the cooperatives, the club, the neighbourhood organization, the political party and so on, then overcomes the collective action predicament. The network of the traditional society in our country is based on the difference order pattern and the Patriarchal clan level, which embodies the asylum ―― dependency relation, is a kind of vertical interaction rather than the transverse interaction, this kind of personal relationship is stronger, the social wholeness may be worse. As a result, the cultural network of power formed in the ancient rural society of our country does not belong to the cultural governance in the modern sense. The traditional social adjustment mechanisms such as religious beliefs, family ties and other symbolic norms and village can only be transformed into social capital and cultural governance within the framework of modern networked governance.

In short, cultural governance is not simply refers to the social function of culture, but has a specific problem consciousness and policy direction, it is as the cultural elements of social capital in the application of network governance, this application is reflected in the governance of culture, but also reflected in the management of culture based. As a policy concept, its main significance lies in the review and promotion of existing policies. However, in our country's existing research on cultural governance, the discussion of policy situation is lack.

After the introduction of culture, the implementation of cultural governance is considered to form the government, society, citizens to participate in the construction of a good situation of public culture. But governance in China is still not a mature dependent environment, for China's cultural policy, its more important significance may be that it can give us a more profound look at the structural problems of Chinese cultural administration, namely, national discourse, market discourse, the imbalance of civic discourse, and the complex game in which they are unfolding. According to the British scholar Jim McQuillan 's summary, in the cultural policy, the state discourse is the state intervention which embodies the state will and the approval politics; market discourse means that all values are reduced to exchange value, and citizen discourse is often expressed as a boycott of state discourse and market discourse. In China, the state discourse occupies an important position, but the concrete unfolding, these three kinds of words and their representatives ' power are all evolving, each presenting multiple faces.

Firstly, the multiplicity of state discourse lies in that the cultural policy under nationalism has both parental care and paternalistic arrogance, as well as the cultural development strategy of "multiple welfare and less empowerment". Under nationalism, the state replaces the society as the main and even the sole supplier of consumer goods. As far as China's cultural policy is concerned, the paradox of nationalism lies in the fact that, on one hand, it should fulfill the parents ' responsibility, satisfy the people's cultural needs, and support the growth of the main body of the culture. This paradox is embodied in the policy choice on cultural rights and Cultural rights. Cultural rights are the universal rights recognized by international conventions, the cultural rights and interests are the special policy concept of our country, the substitution of cultural rights, and the main content of our country's public cultural service system construction. The subtlety of this substitution is that cultural rights are directed towards the positive orientation of the cultural right, that is, "watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, conduct public cultural appreciation, participate in public cultural activities", rather than the negative aspects of cultural rights, such as freedom of expression, academic freedom, freedom of creation, etc. free from unlawful interference, In order to respect, protect and realize three kinds of State obligations in the protection of Cultural Rights, the "parental" choice of welfare orientation is made. The duality of policy brings double-sided effects. On the one hand, both cultural undertakings and cultural industries have been vigorously promoted and developed. On the other hand, the national efforts do not get enough understanding and recognition, whether in the field of business or industry, dissatisfaction is still pervasive, people criticize its between, sectoral interests, inefficient, power will prevail.

The above-mentioned multiplicity embodies the contradictory situation of the national logic and the overlapping of party logic in the national discourse. When discussing the national discourse of cultural policy, Jim McQuillan criticized the socialist country as the means of constructing the culture in the artistic sense, and the aim of the cultural policy is to create "the new socialist". Here, Jim McQuillan has no theory or attention to the dual logic of socialist state discourse, that is, party logic and national logic, the former embodied in the cultural policy is the party will and guardianship orientation, "new" is a specific party ideology in line with the "new"; the latter embodied in the cultural policy is the national integration and welfare orientation, "Newcomer" is a modern scientific and cultural quality of the "new". In China, if the former is drowned out before the reform and opening-up, then in today, the two present a certain separation situation, such as the Ministry of Culture and the State administration of public information in the policy direction of the differences can be seen. The Ministry of Culture has abolished and delegated a number of examination and approval issues, currently only 4, all for foreign-related aspects, a large number of transactional management to the local grassroots and social decentralization. According to the list of administrative examination and approval items in March 2014, the State Administration of press and publication has 53 items of administrative examination and approval, the 6th place in all national ministries, the related industry management and examination and approval are more implemented by the central level. It can be seen that the State administration of press and publication, as the core department to ensure the party's ideology is implemented, policy models tend to be more focused on guardianship and higher concentration, and the logic of political parties is clear, and the policy orientation of the Ministry of Culture is more distinct than the national logic.

Second。 The multiplicity of market discourse is that it appears in the role of the weak and the sympathetic, but gradually shows the arbitrariness of the capital and faces the embarrassment of many critics. In China, the market power in the field of culture is growing in the gap, in the weak side of policy, in the face of an uncertain policy environment, the stability of policy expectations is not enough, the variability of policy intervention is more obvious, and the policy barriers hinder the full extension of the value chain of cultural products. Policy risk and market risk show a "double high" trend.

But. With the growth of market forces, market discourse is increasingly showing the side of collusion with the state. Under the tide of global creative industry, economic rationality penetrates into our country's cultural policy more and more, few countries take such a strong supporting industrial policy to cultural industry as China. However, the growth of market discourse has gradually exposed the arbitrariness of capital, such as "cultural Platform, economic opera" Under the cultural construction is so. In addition, under the impetus of the network revolution, the culture of the capital is also accelerating to penetrate into the economic society at all levels, and the cultural capitalism which the Western scholars believe is the whole commercialization of the culture and shading the material production. This also indicates that, with the expansion of market discourse, critical cultural power will grow. Moreover, this criticism will come from the "collusion" of the state and citizens, which makes the market discourse more complicated.

Third, it is in the national discourse and market discourse strength, the citizen discourse is increasingly as a rebel force emerged. In the planned economy era, the cultural policy model is the typical producer sovereignty, the producer decides what the consumer listens to, sees, reads and even says. However, with the development of marketization, especially the Internet economy, consumer sovereignty is becoming more and more conspicuous. For example, the user experience becomes the traction of all industry development and upgrade, the Internet takes the form of technology empowerment to realize the self empowerment of netizens, and promotes the revolution of discourse power. Thus, as consumers of citizens, and the government, market and other forces increasingly become a network relationship, can form a governance sense of interaction. In the interactive pattern, citizen discourse can not only show the exclusion and deconstruction of the mainstream discourse of the state, but also show the revolt against the state and market discourse in defending the rights of collective culture.

The imbalance of the power of state discourse, market discourse, civic discourse and its representatives is a structural factor restricting the governance of Chinese culture. But the power of the market and the discourse energy released by the network technology indicate that the parental mode of cultural administration needs to be in the governance mode of negotiation interaction.